Skip to main content

About your Search

20121205
20121213
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
parts of this. when you hear about the fiscal cliff, it is not really the tax rate. i do not buy that at all. i do not think we need to increase these tax rates. >> if you go over and the tax rates go up on everyone and all that goes away -- >> i do not think we should do it. i think we should resolve this. it depends on if we do something about it in the next month or two after that. if we do something in 30 days or 90 days and we are clear about that, but nothing people believe we are going to do something until we do it. >> the to go to the broader concern. does the top rate have to end the 39.6% the way it was under bill clinton? could be democrats accept something between if it was coupled with a reduction in the ability on the top 2% to except a reduction of deductions? >> i do not want to second-guess what we might decide. i do not think that is what we should debate the right now. multimillionaires and what deductions they can take is something different. this is where we are. >> that is in addition to. >> yes, in addition to. the problem with having that debate now sugge
. when you hear about the concern about the fiscal cliff, it is not the tax rates. i do not buy that. i do not think we need to increase the tax rates. >> if you go over and the tax rates go up, all of that goes away. >> we should not do it. we should resolve this. it depends on whether we then do something about it in the next month or two after it. we set ourselves on a path to do something within 30, 60, or 90 days and we are clear about that. people do not believe we will do it unless we do something. that is our worries. >> as part of that second stage, does the top rate have to end at 39.6? are there ways democrats can accept something in between bush and clinton if it was coupled with a reduction in the ability of people to take certain deductions or credits? would you see a top rate below 39.6 when the dust settles? >> i do not want to second-guess what we may decide. i think we should go to 39%. that is not what we should be debating. i do not think it is instead of >> it is in addition to. >> yes. having that debate now suggests that that is all we have to do. most people who
of negotiations on the so-called fiscal cliff. disagreements on taxing the wealthy remains one of the sticking points between the two sides. this is about five minutes. >> good morning, everyone. this is not a progress report because there is no progress to report. when it comes to the fiscal cliff that is threatening our economy and threatening jobs, the white house has wasted another week. eight days ago, secretary geithner kaine your to offer a plan that had twice the tax hikes that the president campaigned on. it had more stimulus spending than it had in cuts, and it had an indefinite and infinite increase in the debt limit, like forever. four days ago, we offered a serious proposal based on testimony of president clinton's former chief of staff. since then, there has been no counteroffer from the white house. instead, reports indicate that the president has adopted a deliberate strategy to push our economy right to the edge of the fiscal cliff. instead of reforming the tax code and cutting spending, the president wants to raise tax rates. even if the president got the tax rate hike he wan
getting over the fiscal cliff, the deal getting closer to balance the budget is still very important. i do hope because of the discussion that tax reform is something that is taken seriously for this year. i think that is well overdue. there is not time to do it before december 31. it will give businesses a lot of assurances that the government is paying attention to what they are saying. >> you should tell barack obama to find a jim baker. >> think about each time we have reached a crisis point in our anntry there's been institutional response to tit. we created a central bank. that has proved to be enormous for the past five years and important for years before that. post-world war ii, we create a system and the department of homeland security. i wonder if there's not an institutional -- >> some did not work as well as others. >> that is exactly right. it reflects our values and the focus of the government'. we should have a department of homeland prosperity. we need somebody other than the aboutent to think american competitiveness. something we've taken for granted because we were the
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)